Contemporary Linguistics 6th Edition

OGrady Solutions Manual

Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankfan.com/product/contemporary-linguistics-6th-edition-ogrady-solutions
-manual/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Contemporary Linguistic Analysis An Introduction 7th

Edition OGrady Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/contemporary-linguistic-analysis-
an-introduction-7th-edition-ogrady-solutions-manual/

Contemporary Linguistic Analysis An Introduction 8th

Edition OGrady Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/contemporary-linguistic-analysis-
an-introduction-8th-edition-ogrady-solutions-manual/

Contemporary Management 6th Edition Jones Solutions

Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/contemporary-management-6th-
edition-jones-solutions-manual/

Linguistics For Non Linguists A Primer With Exercises

5th Edition Parker Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/linguistics-for-non-linguists-a-
primer-with-exercises-5th-edition-parker-solutions-manual/
Essentials of Contemporary Management 6th Edition Jones
Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/essentials-of-contemporary-
management-6th-edition-jones-solutions-manual/

Contemporary Management 6th Edition Jones Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/contemporary-management-6th-
edition-jones-test-bank/

Essentials of Contemporary Management 6th Edition Jones

Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/essentials-of-contemporary-
management-6th-edition-jones-test-bank/

Contemporary Business 16th Edition Boone Solutions

Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/contemporary-business-16th-
edition-boone-solutions-manual/

Contemporary Management 8th Edition Jones Solutions

Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/contemporary-management-8th-
edition-jones-solutions-manual/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 But we have not yet done with his achievements on this subject;
for some of the most remarkable and beautiful of the reasonings
which he connected with this problem, belong to the next step of his
generalization.

5. Mutual Attraction of all Particles of Matter.—That all the parts of

the universe are drawn and held together by love, or harmony, or
some affection to which, among other names, that of attraction may
have been given, is an assertion which may very possibly have been
made at various times, by speculators writing at random, and taking
their chance of meaning and truth. The authors of such casual
dogmas have generally nothing accurate or substantial, either in
their conception of the general proposition, or in their reference to
examples of it; and, therefore, their doctrines are no concern of ours
at present. But among those who were really the first to think of the
mutual 412 attraction of matter, we cannot help noticing Francis
Bacon; for his notions were so far from being chargeable with the
looseness and indistinctness to which we have alluded, that he
proposed an experiment 44 which was to decide whether the facts
were so or not;—whether the gravity of bodies to the earth arose
from an attraction of the parts of matter towards each other, or was a
tendency towards the centre of the earth. And this experiment is,
even to this day, one of the best which can be devised, in order to
exhibit the universal gravitation of matter: it consists in the
comparison of the rate of going of a clock in a deep mine, and on a
high place. Huyghens, in his book De Causâ Gravitatis, published in
1690, showed that the earth would have an oblate form, in
consequence of the action of the centrifugal force; but his reasoning
does not suppose gravity to arise from the mutual attraction of the
parts of the earth. The apparent influence of the moon upon the tides
had long been remarked; but no one had made any progress in truly
explaining the mechanism of this influence; and all the analogies to
which reference had been made, on this and similar subjects, as
magnetic and other attractions, were rather delusive than illustrative,
since they represented the attraction as something peculiar in
particular bodies, depending upon the nature of each body.
44 Nov. Org. Lib. ii. Aph. 36.

That all such forces, cosmical and terrestrial, were the same single
force, and that this was nothing more than the insensible attraction
which subsists between one stone and another, was a conception
equally bold and grand; and would have been an incomprehensible
thought, if the views which we have already explained had not
prepared the mind for it. But the preceding steps having disclosed,
between all the bodies of the universe, forces of the same kind as
those which produce the weight of bodies at the earth, and,
therefore, such as exist in every particle of terrestrial matter; it
became an obvious question, whether such forces did not also
belong to all particles of planetary matter, and whether this was not,
in fact, the whole account of the forces of the solar system. But,
supposing this conjecture to be thus suggested, how formidable, on
first appearance at least, was the undertaking of verifying it! For if
this be so, every finite mass of matter exerts forces which are the
result of the infinitely numerous forces of its particles, these forces
acting in different directions. It does not appear, at first sight, that the
law by which the force is related to the distance, will be the same for
the particles as it is for the masses; and, in reality, it 413 is not so,
except in special cases. And, again, in the instance of any effect
produced by the force of a body, how are we to know whether the
force resides in the whole mass as a unit, or in the separate
particles? We may reason, as Newton does, 45 that the rule which
proves gravity to belong universally to the planets, proves it also to
belong to their parts; but the mind will not be satisfied with this
extension of the rule, except we can find decisive instances, and
calculate the effects of both suppositions, under the appropriate
conditions. Accordingly, Newton had to solve a new series of
problems suggested by this inquiry; and this he did.
45 Princip. B. iii. Prop. 7.

These solutions are no less remarkable for the mathematical

power which they exhibit, than the other parts of the Principia. The
propositions in which it is shown that the law of the inverse square
for the particles gives the same law for spherical masses, have that
kind of beauty which might well have justified their being published
for their mathematical elegance alone, even if they had not applied
to any real case. Great ingenuity is also employed in other instances,
as in the case of spheroids of small eccentricity. And when the
amount of the mechanical action of masses of various forms has
thus been assigned, the sagacity shown in tracing the results of such
action in the solar system is truly admirable; not only the general
nature of the effect being pointed out, but its quantity calculated. I
speak in particular of the reasonings concerning the Figure of the
Earth, the Tides, the Precession of the Equinoxes, the Regression of
the Nodes of a ring such as Saturn’s; and of some effects which, at
that time, had not been ascertained even as facts of observation; for
instance, the difference of gravity in different latitudes, and the
Nutation of the earth’s axis. It is true, that in most of these cases,
Newton’s process could be considered only as a rude approximation.
In one (the Precession) he committed an error, and in all, his means
of calculation were insufficient. Indeed these are much more difficult
investigations than the Problem of Three Bodies, in which three
points act on each other by explicit laws. Up to this day, the
resources of modern analysis have been employed upon some of
them with very partial success; and the facts, in all of them, required
to be accurately ascertained and measured, a process which is not
completed even now. Nevertheless the form and nature of the
conclusions which Newton did obtain, were such as to inspire a
strong confidence in the competency of his theory to explain 414 all
such phenomena as have been spoken of. We shall afterwards have
to speak of the labors, undertaken in order to examine the
phenomena more exactly, to which the theory gave occasion.

Thus, then, the theory of the universal mutual gravitation of all the
particles of matter, according to the law of the inverse square of the
distances, was conceived, its consequences calculated, and its
results shown to agree with phenomena. It was found that this theory
took up all the facts of astronomy as far as they had hitherto been
ascertained; while it pointed out an interminable vista of new facts,
too minute or too complex for observation alone to disentangle, but
capable of being detected when theory had pointed out their laws,
and of being used as criteria or confirmations of the truth of the
doctrine. For the same reasoning which explained the evection,
variation, and annual equation of the moon, showed that there must
be many other inequalities besides these; since these resulted from
approximate methods of calculation, in which small quantities were
neglected. And it was known that, in fact, the inequalities hitherto
detected by astronomers did not give the place of the moon with
satisfactory accuracy; so that there was room, among these hitherto
untractable irregularities, for the additional results of the theory. To
work out this comparison was the employment of the succeeding
century; but Newton began it. Thus, at the end of the proposition in
which he asserts, 46 that “all the lunar motions and their irregularities
follow from the principles here stated,” he makes the observation
which we have just made; and gives, as examples, the different
motions of the apogee and nodes, the difference of the change of
the eccentricity, and the difference of the moon’s variation, according
to the different distances of the sun. “But this inequality,” he says, “in
astronomical calculations, is usually referred to the prosthaphæresis
of the moon, and confounded with it.”
46 B. iii. Prop. 22.

Reflections on the Discovery.—Such, then, is the great Newtonian

Induction of Universal Gravitation, and such its history. It is
indisputably and incomparably the greatest scientific discovery ever
made, whether we look at the advance which it involved, the extent
of the truth disclosed, or the fundamental and satisfactory nature of
this truth. As to the first point, we may observe that any one of the
five steps into which we have separated the doctrine, would, of itself,
have been considered as an important advance;—would have
conferred distinction on the persons who made it, and the time to
which it belonged. All 415 the five steps made at once, formed not a
leap, but a flight,—not an improvement merely, but a
metamorphosis,—not an epoch, but a termination. Astronomy
passed at once from its boyhood to mature manhood. Again, with
regard to the extent of the truth, we obtain as wide a generalization
as our physical knowledge admits, when we learn that every particle
of matter, in all times, places, and circumstances, attracts every
other particle in the universe by one common law of action. And by
saying that the truth was of a fundamental and satisfactory nature, I
mean that it assigned, not a rule merely, but a cause, for the
heavenly motions; and that kind of cause which most eminently and
peculiarly we distinctly and thoroughly conceive, namely, mechanical
force. Kepler’s laws were merely formal rules, governing the celestial
motions according to the relations of space, time, and number;
Newton’s was a causal law, referring these motions to mechanical
reasons. It is no doubt conceivable that future discoveries may both
extend and further explain Newton’s doctrines;—may make
gravitation a case of some wider law, and may disclose something of
the mode in which it operates; questions with which Newton himself
struggled. But, in the mean time, few persons will dispute, that both
in generality and profundity, both in width and depth, Newton’s theory
is altogether without a rival or neighbor. 47
47 The value and nature of this step have long been generally
acknowledged wherever science is cultivated. Yet it would appear
that there is, in one part of Europe, a school of philosophers who
contest the merit of this part of Newton’s discoveries. “Kepler,”
says a celebrated German metaphysician,* “discovered the laws
of free motion; a discovery of immortal glory. It has since been the
fashion to say that Newton first found out the proof of these rules.
It has seldom happened that the glory of the first discoverer has
been more unjustly transferred to another person.” It may appear
strange that any one in the present day should hold such
language; but if we examine the reasons which this author gives,
they will be found, I think, to amount to this: that his mind is in the
condition in which Kepler’s was; and that the whole range of
mechanical ideas and modes of conception which made the
transition from Kepler and Newton possible, are extraneous to the
domain of his philosophy. Even this author, however, if I
understand him rightly, recognizes Newton as the author of the
doctrine of Perturbations.
I have given a further account of these views, in a Memoir On
Hegel’s Criticism of Newton’s Principia. Cambridge Transactions,
1849.
* Hegel, Encyclopædia, § 270.
 The requisite conditions of such a discovery in the mind of its
author were, in this as in other cases, the idea, and its comparison
with facts;—the conception of the law, and the moulding this
conception in such a form as to correspond with known realities. The
idea of mechanical 416 force as the cause of the celestial motions,
had, as we have seen, been for some time growing up in men’s
minds; had gone on becoming more distinct and more general; and
had, in some persons, approached the form in which it was
entertained by Newton. Still, in the mere conception of universal
gravitation, Newton must have gone far beyond his predecessors
and contemporaries, both in generality and distinctness; and in the
inventiveness and sagacity with which he traced the consequences
of this conception, he was, as we have shown, without a rival, and
almost without a second. As to the facts which he had to include in
his law, they had been accumulating from the very birth of
astronomy; but those which he had more peculiarly to take hold of
were the facts of the planetary motions as given by Kepler, and
those of the moon’s motions as given by Tycho Brahe and Jeremy
Horrox.

We find here occasion to make a remark which is important in its

bearing on the nature of progressive science. What Newton thus
used and referred to as facts, were the laws which his predecessors
had established. What Kepler and Horrox had put forth as “theories,”
were now established truths, fit to be used in the construction of
other theories. It is in this manner that one theory is built upon
another;—that we rise from particulars to generals, and from one
generalization to another;—that we have, in short, successive steps
of induction. As Newton’s laws assumed Kepler’s, Kepler’s laws
assumed as facts the results of the planetary theory of Ptolemy; and
thus the theories of each generation in the scientific world are (when
thoroughly verified and established,) the facts of the next generation.
Newton’s theory is the circle of generalization which includes all the
others;—the highest point of the inductive ascent;—the catastrophe
of the philosophic drama to which Plato had prologized;—the point to
which men’s minds had been journeying for two thousand years.

Character of Newton.—It is not easy to anatomize the constitution

and the operations of the mind which makes such an advance in
knowledge. Yet we may observe that there must exist in it, in an
eminent degree, the elements which compose the mathematical
talent. It must possess distinctness of intuition, tenacity and facility in
tracing logical connection, fertility of invention, and a strong tendency
to generalization. It is easy to discover indications of these
characteristics in Newton. The distinctness of his intuitions of space,
and we may add of force also, was seen in the amusements of his
youth; in his constructing clocks and mills, carts and dials, as well as
the facility with which he 417 mastered geometry. This fondness for
handicraft employments, and for making models and machines,
appears to be a common prelude of excellence in physical
science; 48 probably on this very account, that it arises from the
distinctness of intuitive power with which the child conceives the
shapes and the working of such material combinations. Newton’s
inventive power appears in the number and variety of the
mathematical artifices and combinations which he devised, and of
which his books are full. If we conceive the operation of the inventive
faculty in the only way in which it appears possible to conceive it;—
that while some hidden source supplies a rapid stream of possible
suggestions, the mind is on the watch to seize and detain any one of
these which will suit the case in hand, allowing the rest to pass by
and be forgotten;—we shall see what extraordinary fertility of mind is
implied by so many successful efforts; what an innumerable host of
thoughts must have been produced, to supply so many that
deserved to be selected. And since the selection is performed by
tracing the consequences of each suggestion, so as to compare
them with the requisite conditions, we see also what rapidity and
certainty in drawing conclusions the mind must possess as a talent,
and what watchfulness and patience as a habit.
48 As in Galileo, Hooke, Huyghens, and others.

The hidden fountain of our unbidden thoughts is for us a mystery;

and we have, in our consciousness, no standard by which we can
measure our own talents; but our acts and habits are something of
which we are conscious; and we can understand, therefore, how it
was that Newton could not admit that there was any difference
between himself and other men, except in his possession of such
habits as we have mentioned, perseverance and vigilance. When he
was asked how he made his discoveries, he answered, “by always
thinking about them;” and at another time he declared that if he had
done any thing, it was due to nothing but industry and patient
thought: “I keep the subject of my inquiry constantly before me, and
wait till the first dawning opens gradually, by little and little, into a full
and clear light.” No better account can be given of the nature of the
mental effort which gives to the philosopher the full benefit of his
powers; but the natural powers of men’s minds are not on that
account the less different. There are many who might wait through
ages of darkness without being visited by any dawn.

The habit to which Newton thus, in some sense, owed his 418
discoveries, this constant attention to the rising thought, and
development of its results in every direction, necessarily engaged
and absorbed his spirit, and made him inattentive and almost
insensible to external impressions and common impulses. The
stories which are told of his extreme absence of mind, probably refer
to the two years during which he was composing his Principia, and
thus following out a train of reasoning the most fertile, the most
complex, and the most important, which any philosopher had ever
had to deal with. The magnificent and striking questions which,
during this period, he must have had daily rising before him; the
perpetual succession of difficult problems of which the solution was
necessary to his great object; may well have entirely occupied and
possessed him. “He existed only to calculate and to think.” 49 Often,
lost in meditation, he knew not what he did, and his mind appeared
to have quite forgotten its connection with the body. His servant
reported that, on rising in a morning, he frequently sat a large portion
of the day, half-dressed, on the side of his bed and that his meals
waited on the table for hours before he came to take them. Even with
his transcendent powers, to do what he did was almost irreconcilable
with the common conditions of human life; and required the utmost
devotion of thought, energy of effort, and steadiness of will—the
strongest character, as well as the highest endowments, which
belong to man.
49 Biot.

Newton has been so universally considered as the greatest

example of a natural philosopher, that his moral qualities, as well as
his intellect, have been referred to as models of the philosophical
character; and those who love to think that great talents are naturally
associated with virtue, have always dwelt with pleasure upon the
views given of Newton by his contemporaries; for they have
uniformly represented him as candid and humble, mild and good. We
may take as an example of the impressions prevalent about him in
his own time, the expressions of Thomson, in the Poem on his
Death. 50 419

Say ye who best can tell, ye happy few,

Who saw him in the softest lights of life,
All unwithheld, indulging to his friends
The vast unborrowed treasures of his mind,
Oh, speak the wondrous man! how mild, how calm
How greatly humble, how divinely good,
How firm established on eternal truth!
Fervent in doing well, with every nerve
Still pressing on, forgetful of the past,
And panting for perfection; far above
Those little cares and visionary joys
That so perplex the fond impassioned heart
Of ever-cheated, ever-trusting man.
50 In the same strain we find the general voice of the time. For
instance, one of Loggan’s “Views of Cambridge” is dedicated
“Isaaco Newtono . . Mathematico, Physico, Chymico
consummatissimo; nec minus suavitate morum et candore animi .
. . spectabili.”
In opposition to the general current of such testimony, we have
the complaints of Flamsteed, who ascribes to Newton angry
language and harsh conduct in the matter of the publication of the
Greenwich Observations, and of Whiston. Yet even Flamsteed
speaks well of his general disposition. Whiston was himself so
weak and prejudiced that his testimony is worth very little.

[2d Ed.] [In the first edition of the Principia, published in 1687,
Newton showed that the nature of all the then known inequalities of
the moon, and in some cases, their quantities, might be deduced
from the principles which he laid down but the determination of the
amount and law of most of the inequalities was deferred to a more
favorable opportunity, when he might be furnished with better
astronomical observations. Such observations as he needed for this
purpose had been made by Flamsteed, and for these he applied,
representing how much value their use would add to the
observations. “If,” he says, in 1694, “you publish them without such a
theory to recommend them, they will only be thrown into the heap of
the observations of former astronomers, till somebody shall arise
that by perfecting the theory of the moon shall discover your
observations to be exacter than the rest; but when that shall be, God
knows: I fear, not in your lifetime, if I should die before it is done. For
I find this theory so very intricate, and the theory of gravity so
necessary to it, that I am satisfied it will never be perfected but by
somebody who understands the theory of gravity as well, or better
than I do.” He obtained from Flamsteed the lunar observations for
which he applied, and by using these he framed the Theory of the
Moon which is given as his in David Gregory’s Astronomiæ
Elementa. 51 He also obtained from Flamsteed the diameters of the
planets as observed at various times, and the greatest elongation of
Jupiter’s Satellites, both of which, Flamsteed says, he made use of
in his Principia.
51 In the Preface to a Treatise on Dynamics, Part i., published in
1836, I have endeavored to show that Newton’s modes of
determining several of the lunar inequalities admitted of an
accuracy not very inferior to the modern analytical methods.

Newton, in his letters to Flamsteed in 1694 and 5, acknowledges

this service. 52 ]
52 The quarrel on the subject of the publication of Flamsteed’s
Observations took place at a later period. Flamsteed wished to
have his Observations printed complete and entire. Halley, who,
under the authority of Newton and others, had the management of
the printing, made many alterations and omissions, which
Flamsteed considered as deforming and spoiling the work. The
advantages of publishing a complete series of observations, now
generally understood, were not then known to astronomers in
general, though well known to Flamsteed, and earnestly insisted
upon in his remonstrances. The result was that Flamsteed
published his Observations at his own expense, and finally
obtained permission to destroy the copies printed by Halley, which
he did. In 1726, after Flamsteed’s death, his widow applied to the
Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, requesting that the volume printed by
Halley might be removed out of the Bodleian Library, where it
exists, as being “nothing more than an erroneous abridgment of
Mr. Flamsteed’s works,” and unfit to see the light. 420
 CHAPTER III.

Sequel to the Epoch of Newton.—Reception of the Newtonian Theory.

Sect. 1.—General Remarks.

T HE doctrine of universal gravitation, like other great steps in

science, required a certain time to make its way into men’s
minds; and had to be confirmed, illustrated, and completed, by the
labors of succeeding philosophers. As the discovery itself was great
beyond former example, the features of the natural sequel to the
discovery were also on a gigantic scale; and many vast and
laborious trains of research, each of which might, in itself, be
considered as forming a wide science, and several of which have
occupied many profound and zealous inquirers from that time to our
own day, come before us as parts only of the verification of Newton’s
Theory. Almost every thing that has been done, and is doing, in
astronomy, falls inevitably under this description; and it is only when
the astronomer travels to the very limits of his vast field of labor, that
he falls in with phenomena which do not acknowledge the jurisdiction
of the Newtonian legislation. We must give some account of the
events of this part of the history of astronomy; but our narrative must
necessarily be extremely brief and imperfect; for the subject is most
large and copious, and our limits are fixed and narrow. We have here
to do with the history of discoveries, only so far as it illustrates their
philosophy. And though the 421 astronomical discoveries of the last
century are by no means poor, even in interest of this kind, the
generalizations which they involve are far less important for our
object, in consequence of being included in a previous
generalization. Newton shines out so brightly, that all who follow
seem faint and dim. It is not precisely the case which the poet
describes—

As in a theatre the eyes of men,

After some well-graced actor leaves the stage,
Are idly bent on him that enters next,
Thinking his prattle to be tedious:

but our eyes are at least less intently bent on the astronomers who
succeeded, and we attend to their communications with less
curiosity, because we know the end, if not the course of their story;
we know that their speeches have all closed with Newton’s sublime
declaration, asserted in some new form.

Still, however, the account of the verification and extension of any

great discovery is a highly important part of its history. In this
instance it is most important; both from the weight and dignity of the
theory concerned, and the ingenuity and extent of the methods
employed: and, of course, so long as the Newtonian theory still
required verification, the question of the truth or falsehood of such a
grand system of doctrines could not but excite the most intense
curiosity. In what I have said, I am very far from wishing to depreciate
the value of the achievements of modern astronomers, but it is
essential to my purpose to mark the subordination of narrower to
wider truths—the different character and import of the labors of those
who come before and after the promulgation of a master-truth. With
this warning I now proceed to my narrative.

Sect. 2.—Reception of the Newtonian Theory in England.

 There appears to be a popular persuasion that great discoveries
are usually received with a prejudiced and contentious opposition,
and the authors of them neglected or persecuted. The reverse of this
was certainly the case in England with regard to the discoveries of
Newton. As we have already seen, even before they were published,
they were proclaimed by Halley to be something of transcendent
value; and from the moment of their appearance, they rapidly made
their way from one class of thinkers to another, nearly as fast as the
nature of men’s intellectual capacity allows. Halley, Wren, and all the
leading 422 members of the Royal Society, appear to have embraced
the system immediately and zealously. Men whose pursuits had lain
rather in literature than in science, and who had not the knowledge
and habits of mind which the strict study of the system required,
adopted, on the credit of their mathematical friends, the highest
estimation of the Principia, and a strong regard for its author, as
Evelyn, Locke, and Pepys. Only five years after the publication, the
principles of the work were referred to from the pulpit, as so
incontestably proved that they might be made the basis of a
theological argument. This was done by Dr. Bentley, when he
preached the Boyle’s Lectures in London, in 1692. Newton himself,
from the time when his work appeared, is never mentioned except in
terms of profound admiration; as, for instance, when he is called by
Dr. Bentley, in his sermon, 53 “That very excellent and divine theorist,
Mr. Isaac Newton.” It appears to have been soon suggested, that the
Government ought to provide in some way for a person who was so
great an honor to the nation. Some delay took place with regard to
this; but, in 1695, his friend Mr. Montague, afterwards Earl of Halifax,
at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer, made him Warden of the
Mint; and in 1699, he succeeded to the higher office of Master of the
Mint, a situation worth £1200 or £1500 a year, which he filled to the
end of his life. In 1703, he became President of the Royal Society,
and was annually re-elected to this office during the remaining
twenty-five years of his life. In 1705, he was knighted in the Master’s
Lodge, at Trinity College, by Queen Anne, then on a visit to the
University of Cambridge. After the accession of George the First,
Newton’s conversation was frequently sought by the Princess,
afterwards Queen Caroline, who had a taste for speculative studies,
and was often heard to declare in public, that she thought herself
fortunate in living at a time which enabled her to enjoy the society of
so great a genius. His fame, and the respect paid him, went on
increasing to the end of his life; and when, in 1727, full of years and
glory, his earthly career was ended, his death was mourned as a
national calamity, with the forms usually confined to royalty. His body
lay in state in the Jerusalem chamber; his pall was borne by the first
nobles of the land and his earthly remains were deposited in the
centre of Westminster Abbey, in the midst of the memorials of the
greatest and wisest men whom England has produced.
53 Serm. vii. 221.

It cannot be superfluous to say a word or two on the reception of

423 his philosophy in the universities of England. These are often
represented as places where bigotry and ignorance resist, as long as
it is possible to resist, the invasion of new truths. We cannot doubt
that such opinions have prevailed extensively, when we find an
intelligent and generally temperate writer, like the late Professor
Playfair of Edinburgh, so far possessed by them, as to be incapable
of seeing, or interpreting, in any other way, any facts respecting
Oxford and Cambridge. Yet, notwithstanding these opinions, it will be
found that, in the English universities, new views, whether in science
or in other subjects, have been introduced as soon as they were
clearly established;—that they have been diffused from the few to
the many more rapidly there than elsewhere occurs;—and that from
these points, the light of newly-discovered truths has most usually
spread over the land. In most instances undoubtedly there has been
something of a struggle, on such occasions, between the old and the
new opinions. Few men’s minds can at once shake off a familiar and
consistent system of doctrines, and adopt a novel and strange set of
principles as soon as presented; but all can see that one change
produces many, and that change, in itself, is a source of
inconvenience and danger. In the case of the admission of the
Newtonian opinions into Cambridge and Oxford, however, there are
no traces even of a struggle. Cartesianism had never struck its roots
deep in this country; that is, the peculiar hypotheses of Descartes.
The Cartesian books, such, for instance, as that of Rohault, were
indeed in use; and with good reason, for they contained by far the
best treatises on most of the physical sciences, such as Mechanics,
Hydrostatics, Optics, and Formal Astronomy, which could then be
found. But I do not conceive that the Vortices were ever dwelt upon
as a matter of importance in our academic teaching. At any rate, if
they were brought among us, they were soon dissipated. Newton’s
College, and his University, exulted in his fame, and did their utmost
to honor and aid him. He was exempted by the king from the
obligation of taking orders, under which the fellows of Trinity College
in general are; by his college he was relieved from all offices which
might interfere, however slightly, with his studious employments,
though he resided within the walls of the society thirty-five years,
almost without the interruption of a month. 54 By the University he
was elected their representative in parliament in 1688, 424 and again
in 1701; and though he was rejected in the dissolution of 1705, those
who opposed him acknowledged him 55 to be “the glory of the
University and nation,” but considered the question as a political one,
and Newton as sent “to tempt them from their duty, by the great and
just veneration they had for him.” Instruments and other memorials,
valued because they belonged to him, are still preserved in his
college, along with the tradition of the chambers which he occupied.
54 His name is nowhere found on the college-books, as appointed
to any of the offices which usually pass down the list of resident
fellows in rotation. This might be owing in part, however, to his
being Lucasian Professor. The constancy of his residence in
college appears from the exit and redit book of that time, which is
still preserved.

55 A pamphlet by Styan Thurlby.

The most active and powerful minds at Cambridge became at

once disciples and followers of Newton. Samuel Clarke, afterwards
his friend, defended in the public schools a thesis taken from his
philosophy, as early as 1694; and in 1697 published an edition of
Rohault’s Physics, with notes, in which Newton is frequently referred
to with expressions of profound respect, though the leading doctrines
of the Principia are not introduced till a later edition, in 1703. In 1699,
Bentley, whom we have already mentioned as a Newtonian, became
Master of Trinity College; and in the same year, Whiston, another of
Newton’s disciples, was appointed his deputy as professor of
mathematics. Whiston delivered the Newtonian doctrines, both from
the professor’s chair, and in works written for the use of the
University; yet it is remarkable that a taunt respecting the late
introduction of the Newtonian system into the Cambridge course of
education, has been founded on some peevish expressions which
he uses in his Memoirs, written at a period when, having incurred
expulsion from his professorship and the University, he was naturally
querulous and jaundiced in his views. In 1709–10, Dr. Laughton, who
was tutor in Clare Hall, procured himself to be appointed moderator
of the University disputations, in order to promote the diffusion of the
new mathematical doctrines. By this time the first edition of the
Principia was become rare, and fetched a great price. Bentley urged
Newton to publish a new one; and Cotes, by far the first, at that time,
of the mathematicians of Cambridge, undertook to superintend the
printing, and the edition was accordingly published in 1713.

[2d Ed.] [I perceive that my accomplished German translator,

Littrow, has incautiously copied the insinuations of some modern
writers to the effect that Clarke’s reference to Newton, in his Edition
of Rohault’s Physics, was a mode of introducing Newtonian
doctrines covertly, when it was not allowed him to introduce such
novelties 425 openly. I am quite sure that any one who looks into this
matter will see that this supposition of any unwillingness at
Cambridge to receive Newton’s doctrine is quite absurd, and can
prove nothing but the intense prejudices of those who maintain such
an opinion. Newton received and held his professorship amid the
unexampled admiration of all contemporary members of the
University. Whiston, who is sometimes brought as an evidence
against Cambridge on this point, says, “I with immense pains set
myself with the utmost zeal to the study of Sir Isaac Newton’s
wonderful discoveries in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia
Mathematica, one or two of which lectures I had heard him read in
the public schools, though I understood them not at the time.” As to
Rohault’s Physics, it really did contain the best mechanical
philosophy of the time;—the doctrines which were held by Descartes
in common with Galileo, and with all the sound mathematicians who
succeeded them. Nor does it look like any great antipathy to novelty
in the University of Cambridge, that this book, which was quite as
novel in its doctrines as Newton’s Principia, and which had only been